Sweden: The Triumph of Cultural Marxism

Mona Sahlin, leader of the Swedish Social Democratic Party, confirmed that her party and the Greens want to form a coalition government in 2010. What kind of policy will such a government follow? Miljöpartiet de Gröna, the Swedish Green Party, state on their official website that the education system should start working for "gender equality" at an early age; children need counterweights to the gender roles which girls and boys are raised into. Therefore teachers and personnel in child care services must finish an education in equality before they are given their exams. They also want to abolish grades in schools:

"We want to do away with the grade system [in today's schools]. Grades contribute considerably to stress and are not a fair and objective system of measuring the individual's potential."

The Green Party favor ideological Globalism in its purest form. They want a "world citizenship" to replace the national citizenship, totally free migration on a global basis, global taxes and a strengthened United Nations to ensure a just world order:

"We do not believe in artificial borders. We have a vision of unrestricted immigration and emigration, where people have the right to live and work wherever they please… We want Sweden to become an international role model by producing a plan to implement unrestricted immigration."

They have a strong focus on anti-discrimination and racism, and desire harsh and swift penalties for "discrimination" yet soft penalties for many other crimes. They want "religiously neutral" holidays (no Christmas or Easter) and education against racism and discrimination to be taught in schools. No "bigotry" against any group of people (except whites presumably, and white men in particular) will be allowed, and all forms of bigotry should be banned by law regardless of where it is voiced. Among the forms of racism they specify should be aggressively stamped out is "Islamophobia." However, they understand that racism cannot be totally stamped out until we have dismantled the "racist world order" and replaced it with a just world order where none suffer and the poor are no longer exploited.

The Swedish Green Party state explicitly that the concepts male and female are "socially constructed" and forced upon all human beings. In order to reach the new world order, it is paramount that all such artificial identities are broken down. This should be facilitated by the education system and specially trained teachers. They believe that "all human beings" should be free to choose whatever name they desire. By this they appear to mean "gender" as well. They want everything to be "gender neutral," not only marriage ceremonies but identity cards.

I assume this means that I should be able to choose a female name on my identity card and that the state is oppressing me if it doesn't allow this. Since employing artificial categories such as "male" and "female" contributes to upholding the exploitative world order of poverty and global warming, one must assume that children will starve in the Sudan if I cannot call myself "Mary" or "Christine" on my driver's license. After all, I may have a penis, but it's a socially constructed penis and it contributes to an unjust capitalist system.

Unfortunately, this is unscientific nonsense. Professor Helmuth Nyborg at Aarhus University in Denmark did research which revealed that there are differences between the sexes when it comes to intelligence. This triggered massive resistance. According to him, "Within the realms of psychology you are not allowed to talk about intelligence. You cannot measure intelligence and you cannot rank people according to intelligence. The entire field of intelligence is a so-called 'no-go-area.'" If you still choose to proceed, you are a bad person. If you also look at differences between groups of people, you are viewed as immoral and plain evil.

According to Professor Annica Dahlstrom, an expert in neuroscience, men are found at the extremes of high and low intelligence. Although female geniuses do exist, they are much less frequent than male ones. She believes children should be left primarily in the care of their mother during their first years of living. The feminist establishment in Sweden claims that she has misused her position as a scientist to reinforce gender stereotypes. As Dahlström says, "The difference between boys and girls, in terms of their biology and brain, is greater than we could ever have imagined." Differences between the sexes emerge in fetuses and are clearly recognizable at the age of three. The centers of the brain dealing with verbal communication, the interpretation of facial expressions and body language are more developed in girls even at this early age. Forcing boys to behave like girls are vice versa is unnatural and will inevitably hurt them. Such a policy could even be viewed as "mental abuse" of children in her view. Yet this is exactly what is happening, sometimes with government support.

Mona Sahlin has held various posts in Social Democratic cabinets, among others as Minister of Democracy, Integration and Gender Equality. Sahlin has said that many Swedes are envious of immigrants because they, unlike the Swedes, have a culture, a history, something which ties them together. She has stated that "If two equally qualified persons apply for a job at a workplace with few immigrants, the one called Muhammad should get the job….It should be considered an asset to have an ethnic background different from the Swedish one." This is another way of saying that the natives according to Multicultural doctrines are second-rate citizens of their own country. Sahlin was elected leader of the Social Democrats in 2007.

Only a week after members of Antifascistisk Action (AFA) harassed a Swedish judge and vandalized his house, AFA members demonstrated alongside the Swedish police, the Swedish government and the Swedish media establishment during Pride Week, Stockholm's annual gay celebration, in August 2007. At the very end of the Pride Parade marched a group of black-clothed and masked blackhood or blackshirt representatives of AFA, ready to beat up anybody deemed to be insufficiently tolerant (they did hospitalize at least one person that day, according to their website). Adjacent to them marched a number of policemen, including members of the Swedish Gay Police organization.

According to journalist Kurt Lundgren, Mona Sahlin, expected to become Prime Minister in the future, was a participant in the Pride Festival in 2007 where she was graduated, after several questions about orgasms, to the Fucking Medal Award. Has she given some thought to what effect this will have in a country with exploding rape statistics? According to the leading blogger Dick Erixon, the number of reported rapes in Sweden is now three times as high as in New York City. NYC has roughly the same number of inhabitants but it is a metropolis, whereas Sweden is a country with mostly rural areas and villages. Swedish girls are called "whores" on a regular basis and are increasingly scared to go outside, yet the nation's arguably most powerful woman takes the Fucking Medal Award. How will this be perceived?

Moreover, how will these views on "sexual liberation" be reconciled with her party's cozy relationship with groups affiliated with the Muslim Brotherhood, since several of its international leaders have indicated that gays should be killed? Top Brotherhood cleric Yusuf al-Qaradawi discussed at the Arabic satellite channel al-Jazeera various punishments he said were appropriate for homosexuality, including being thrown from heights or burnings: "Some say we should burn them, and so on. There is disagreement." Mona Sahlin thinks that the right-wing opposition party the Sweden Democrats are "a misogynistic" party. I suppose the Muslim Brotherhood isn't? The Swedish Church has announced that it will allow gay couples to marry in church. Will the Social Democrats make sure that gay couples will be allowed to marry in mosques controlled by the MB? More interestingly, will the left-wing extremists of AFA attack them for homophobia if they refuse?Kurt Lundgren in May 2007 had a noteworthy story on his blog. Lundgren reported about a magazine aimed at preschool teachers who take care of children between the ages of 0-6 years old. It included recommendations to promote "gender equality" and "sexual equality." He said that in a kindergarten in Stockholm, parents were encouraged by the preschool teachers to equip their sons with dresses and female first names. There are now weeks in some places when boys HAVE TO wear a dress. Lundgren considers this sexual indoctrination to be worse than political propaganda:

"To give sex education to preschool children, to force them to have an opinion on gay sex and queer (lesbians, transsexuals, bisexuality, fetishism, cross over, sex change etc.) I regard as abuse of children.…Little children, we are talking about three to six-year-olds here, cannot in the preschool protect themselves from these sexual assaults. Their parents are not there, the children are totally left to themselves."

The Frankfurt school of cultural Marxism, with thinkers Antonio Gramsci and Georg Lukacs, aimed at overthrowing capitalist rule by undermining the hegemonic culture. According to Gramsci, the Socialist revolution, which failed to spread following the Russian Revolution in 1917, could never take place until people were liberated from Western culture, particularly from their "Christian soul." As Lukacs said in 1919, "Who will save us from Western Civilization?" This could be done through breaking down traditional morality and family patterns and undermining the established culture from within by a long march through the institutions, the media and the schools. We can now see that this strategy has been successful in Western media and academia, which are not only lukewarm in defending our civilization but in some cases actively side with our mortal enemies. The irony is that most Westerners have never heard of Gramsci, yet ideas similar to his have had a huge impact on their lives.

The British historian Roland Huntford wrote a book in the early 1970s about Sweden called The New Totalitarians. He noted how equality between the sexes was aggressively promoted from the late 1960s and early 70s. This was closely linked to a campaign for sexual liberation:

"Indeed, the word 'freedom' in Swedish has come to mean almost exclusively sexual freedom, product perhaps of an unadmitted realization that it is absent, or unwanted, elsewhere. Through sex instruction at school for the young, and incessant propaganda in the mass media for the older generations, most of Sweden has been taught to believe that freedom has been achieved through sex. Because he is sexually emancipated, the Swede believes that he is a free man, and judges liberty entirely in sexual terms.…The Swedish government has taken what it is pleased to call 'the sexual revolution' under its wing. Children are impressed at school that sexual emancipation is their birthright, and this is done in such a way as to suggest that the State is offering them their liberty from old-fashioned restrictions."

By old-fashioned restrictions, read Christian morality. Huntford noted that this came together with efforts to downplay or attack Western culture prior to the French Revolution. As Mr. Olof Palme, who was Swedish Socialist Prime Minister from the late 1960s until 1986, said: "The Renaissance So-called? Western culture? What does it mean to us?"

"As political and economic freedom diminishes" said Aldous Huxley's in Brave New World, "sexual freedom tends compensatingly to increase." This fits perfectly with Huntford's description. The state strips away your personal, economic and political freedom, yet grants you sexual freedom in return, boldly hailing itself as your liberator. Sweden in 2008 is a society with no real freedom of speech if you deviate from the ruling ideology. The more crushing ideological censorship and political repression become, the more frantic the displays of "sexual freedom" get. Sex is freedom; freedom means sex, and only sex.

State authorities present this as liberation of women and sexual liberation, but it is actually about breaking down rival sources of power: The traditional Christian culture and the nuclear family. This leaves the state more powerful since it can regulate all aspects of life and, most importantly, can indoctrinate the nation's children as it sees fit, without undue parental interference. The state replaces your family, raises your children and cares for your elderly.

Meanwhile, the country is in the midst of the most explosive rape wave in recent history, largely caused by immigration. While Swedish girls are called "whores" by immigrants, Swedish boys are told to be as "gender neutral" as possible. Traditionally, a nation has been defended by masculine men who take pride in their heritage. By removing cultural pride and any sense of masculinity among native men, the country is rendered effectively defenseless. And maybe that was the intention?

In Western Europe, great emphasis is placed on destroying the heritage of the native population and instilling whites with a guilt complex and shame designed to alienate them from their own history. They are supposed to abase themselves in front of immigrants and tell them how worthless and evil their culture is, or alternatively how much they lament the fact that they don't have a culture.

While Christianity has been ridiculed for generations, so much so that Christians complain about persecution, Islam is presented in textbooks as a benevolent religion and granted a high degree of respect in the public sphere. Maybe I have a conspiratorial mindset, but the way Multiculturalists condemn Christianity and praise Islam is so consistent that I cannot help but ask whether some of them have deliberately set out to uproot the plague of Christianity from our culture once and for all. They ridicule it at any given opportunity and at the same time import a rival religion and groom it as a replacement. When the day comes when people have gotten sufficiently tired of nihilism, Christianity will have become so discredited as to have been eliminated as a viable alternative, and people are left with Islam. Or maybe it's simply about eradicating everything associated with Europeans and European culture.

Sweden has been known as a "model country" with an economic system as a third way between capitalism and Socialism, or enlightened Socialism as it has been called. In 2008, the "Swedish model" no longer refers to an economic success story (and the Swedish economy grew rapidly before the welfare state was established), but to a horror story of cultural suicide, Gramscian cultural Marxism, ideological censorship and repression of dissent. Sweden is not unique. Similar trends are evident all over the Western world. But Political Correctness is perhaps unusual in its severity here, in part because Sweden already viewed itself as an "ideological state," and the country is definitely ahead of the curve in ideological repression. Those of us who still have some love for aspects of what once was traditional Swedish culture can only hope that some of it is still alive and can re-emerge once the current ideological paradigm has disintegrated. The question remains, though, how much will be left of the Swedish nation once we get to that point. What is certain is that rough times are ahead, not just for Sweden but for the entire Western world, as Multiculturalism facilitates the slow disintegration of our societies.

Representative democracy is evocative of "strong leadership". Unfortunately, there is a painfully obvious flip side to that coin. Elites cannot be extricated from human social structures - from families and networks to states and super-states. However, they need to be replaced and have their power usurped if they no longer facilitate a society's "success".

Jews cannot be faulted for acting in their own interests. Nor are their attempts to identify with the majority and visa versa unique - is Barack Hussein Obama not pledging to represent White and Hispanic Americans also? Indeed, despite their efforts to prevent those conditions that permitted the Shoah to re-occur, their influence is soon being eclipsed by less desirable minorities or "Others". What is laughable is Western solidarity with Israel and use of the term "Judeo-Christian". From not wanting to be 'alone' with Whites, Jews now want Whites to be a 'team' with them ostensibly to counter Islam. Ultimately, though, going after Jews is no different than French leftists slandering their ancien enemy - Catholicism - and turning a blind eye to the march of Islam.

Ascribing overly disproportionate influence to a particular group is pure folly. Why? Because conspiracy theorists are as much "true believers" as monks - they believe in an orderly and purposeful world, where even if things are going terribly, someone is responsible (e.g. God, the Templars, Freemasons, Jews etc.), but it is in control.

Lastly, I agree that "loud complaints" and "legal actions" are useless, as the conditions for upheaval are beyond the point of no return. Not unlike the current Credit Crunch and its attendant panic, our demographic crisis is being ignored. And pumping in easy credit to delay the inevitable is no different than allowing in hordes of foreign "youth".

Before the relatively well-organized and demarcated world wars occupied the place of pride in the 'carnage' sections of our school texts, the chaos of the Thirty Years War was the manifestation of Hell on Earth.

"Elites cannot be extricated from human social structures - from families and networks to states and super-states. However, they need to be replaced and have their power usurped if they no longer facilitate a society's "success".

What word should we use instead of the "elites" misnomer? And who is it, in the first place, that we call elites? I think we should make a distinction between the frontmen and the stringpullers. Most members of parliament are useless frontmen who vote as they are told by the direction of their party. They do not lead or rule the country. The owner of a TV station has more influence than they have. The unfortunate thing is that our non-elites are partly self-elected. They have a hand in the flawed process of choosing new (non-)elites. In order to produce elites, I think what is needed is a decentralized administration, a decentralized political system, and decentralized TV stations and newspapers.

"Jews cannot be faulted for acting in their own interests."

The usual phrase is "in their perceived self-interest", because it is not obvious that the destruction of white society will really help the Jews. If Jews are allowed to pursue their own interests, the Whites should be allowed to imitate the Jews and have their own separate schools, closed to non-whites. But if we try that, the result is that we will be sued by... Jewish organizations.

"Nor are their attempts to identify with the majority and visa versa unique - is Barack Hussein Obama not pledging to represent White and Hispanic Americans also?"

If the Jews insist in speaking in the name of Europeans (and also in the name of third-world immigrants: it is obvious that the vulgar media production aimed at immigrants is not made by immigrants), I wish they would allow a few exceptions. I wish we had a few newspapers and radio stations (preferably not headed by Jews!) to counter the Jewish point of view and speak for Europeans.

"their influence is soon being eclipsed by less desirable minorities or "Others"."

I think the cultural and political influence of muslim immigrants amounts to nothing.

"What is laughable is Western solidarity with Israel and use of the term "Judeo-Christian".

I agree.

"From not wanting to be 'alone' with Whites, Jews now want Whites to be a 'team' with them ostensibly to counter Islam."

Jewish organizations promote our race-replacement by muslims, and they demonize both muslim immigrants and Europeans who resist race-replacement!

"Ultimately, though, going after Jews is no different than French leftists slandering their ancien enemy - Catholicism - and turning a blind eye to the march of Islam."

Personally, I am not going after Jews, and I want to send Arabs back to their homelands. For this, I am more likely to get trouble from the Jews than from the Arabs.

"Ascribing overly disproportionate influence to a particular group is pure folly."

And yet, is it not the case that the Jews have too much exaggerated overly disproportionate influence?

"conspiracy theorists"

You don't need to be a conspiracy theorist to see that, by and large, the Jews are pushing for our replacement by immigrants. I think they are also damaging European culture in many ways. If we are interested in the survival of white people, we should publically protest against the dominance of Jews in the media (and in many other institutions) and ask for their replacement by non-Jews. Maybe we could arrange a system of quotas. More than sweeping reductions in the number of Jews at the top, I think what is needed is a few independent TV stations and newspapers with no Jews at all, and with a consciously European outlook, who will take a clear moral stand against miscegenation.

"Lastly, I agree that "loud complaints" and "legal actions" are useless, as the conditions for upheaval are beyond the point of no return. Not unlike the current Credit Crunch and its attendant panic, our demographic crisis is being ignored. And pumping in easy credit to delay the inevitable is no different than allowing in hordes of foreign "youth".

I'm not against the idea of making loud complaints to try and change things. I think your analogy between allowing easy credit and allowing third-world immigration doesn't work. Allowing immigration does not provide easy relief, au contraire! Maybe it provides relief for politicians and public figures. By resisting common sense and the pressure to end immigration, they escape condemnation by the media. But immigration does not provide relief for western societies: it is killing us.

That woman honestly scares me. And I am an immigrant in Sweden! It will be useful idiots like her who will finally push the peaceful people of Sweden so much into the corner, they will finally go and face the conflict. And at that time, I just have to hope to be speaking accentless Swedish already, otherwise I hang on the nearest tree with a bunch of other immigrants.

This is such a painful distraction. We can only hope that these delusional fools fail to propagate. Perhaps, since they have gender issues, they won't know what goes where. Otherwise, we will just have to wait for the laws of survival to sort them out; we have no time for their nonsense. In the meantime, on with the Crusades.

There are many ways to fight the Crusade, but you do not always get to pick your battleground, so you be as prepared to aerate an assailant as to send a letter to your (Moslem) congressman as to speak out at a school board meeting. Remember the Maccabee battle cry: "God's victory!"

It all reads rather like Lewis Carroll, doesn't it? The end of adopting this endless amorphous disintegration would be social schizophrenia. It is based on denial, of nationality, culture, sex, religion. The hippies used to talk of owning-up to what we were (though they weren't too good at it) now the counter-culture, officially adopted, becomes a denial of everything we ever were. You live a fantasy-life and then complain that reality doesn't fit in. This is madder than those cults who used to go and hide in the Amazonian jungle, though it would be nice if they would all pack up and go there and pretend to be monkeys or something.

It's time to hit back: I don't see why geert wilders can't leave his home alone, and those leftish freaks can! Why only those who defend us live in fear ? Those who want to destroy us should live in fear !

The problem is that we are so damn civilised: I am not going to hit or threaten someone, nor is anyone here going to do similar things. But the leftists have their islamic bullies and the politicians have judges and police behind them to bully us.

Some believe the West will not be cured of left-liberalism until it brings about disasters that discredit it. But if the rioting and burning in France is not enough, and the orgy of rape in Sweden and Norway is not enough, what will it take to make Westerners assert themselves?

The first step is to return to true political discussion in which we address what a political community is and what roles people may play in it. We should set aside the game of name-calling and scapegoating politics has become (mea culpa) and seek the truth that underlies the current system. Mass politics has evolved in perverse ways (see Henry Maine's Popular Government) and it is worth asking if it can be reformed.

Neopopulism takes the view that it can--that expert aristocracy is the main cause of our ills and that the people have sufficient intelligence and virtue to govern themselves better than the experts they currently allow to govern them. As the principles and value of self-government are not wholly forgotten in the West, it should not require civil war to re-establish them. What it takes is loud complaints and legal actions asserting that the governors are thwarting the will of the people. This approach does not directly address who the people are, but it is fluid and may encourage individuals to join the people instead of preying on them, or to move on. Taking the American Revolution as the successful model, the people should probably be armed and willing to defend themselves. Retired people should take a leading role because they have more time to organize things and discuss as well as memories of better days.

I’ve asked many people over the years who are die-hard Democrats whether they want the USA to be like Sweden and was given a puzzled look for a response. Unfortunately there are so many lifelong Democrats who do not realize that the modern Democratic Party is essentially a socialist body whose leaders share an ideology with people like Mona Sahlin. Western culture is superior to nonwestern culture, and anybody with half a brain should be able to see it. However, there are leftists in every nation in the Western World who either can’t see it or refuse to see it. They go around, very often in universities, preaching multiculturalism which is absolute bunk. Multicultural leftists like Mona Sahlin are the ones who are destroying the West. The Islamists who are becoming increasingly confident in once great nations throughout Europe are nothing more than opportunists who will inherit the continent by default.

I realized just how bad things have gotten when I saw this article and was actually happy to read what a mess Sweden was making of its own culture. I also enjoyed reading this morning that Iceland is on the brink of economic collapse. Throughout the past twenty years the Europeans have seemed determined to alienate their most natural allies, the Americans (see, for example, the comments last week by the head of the Nobel Literature Prize committee claiming that American literature is inherently inferior to European literature). Well, if my feelings are any indication, the Europeans have succeeded brilliantly. I now take pleasure in European failure and suffering. Enjoy your dhimmitude, Mona Sahlin. Just don't seek refugee status in the United States.

While I can understand your exasperation with a closed ideological mind such as Kappert's, I would like to clarify two matters that might perhaps improve your understanding.

1) First when Kappert uses the term "liberalism" he means almost the opposite of what Americans like yourself understand that to mean. In the European (Kappertian) sense, liberalism is generally juxtaposed to socialism in a socio-economic sense. In America, by contrast, liberalism means almost the opposite. There it is broadly used as a synonym for socialism/collectivism in a cultural/ethical sense. In America liberalism has become somewhat a 'dirty' word, that conveys the notion of irresponsible individual behavior and advocay of excessive government intervention and government largesse.

2) Kappert's understanding of the "Dutroux case" is totally wrong (which tells us something about the bias of the German media). Marc Dutroux is a Belgian pedofile and child murderer, who got away for a long time with terrible behavior in socialist circles of francophone Wallonia in Belgium, which has been for a long time a bastion of the Socialist party. Kappert absurdly associates all this with "capitalist society". In fact, the Dutroux case is/was a reflection of cultural behavior patterns - particularly very lax attitudes regarding criminals and punishment - which have been the hallmark of froncophone Belgium for quite a long time. One can reasonably associate it with (a) the long-standing power monopoly of the socialist party in Wallonia (which put a number of people for a long time 'beyond the law' so-to-speak) and (b) with a general degeneration of morals in the culture (especially the education system) and the refusal to get tough with criminal behavior and other forms of illegality (including illegal immigration etc...).

Thanks for your helpful comments, Marcfrans, but my exasperation was directed at leftists in general, and especially the Swedish leftists described in Fjordman's essay, not at Herr Kappert. I did not see his liberalism-scapegoating comment until after I had posted mine, though his earlier comment--"Better Mona Sahlin than Sarah Palin"--certainly invited an ad hominem response.

Is it worthwhile to continue to participate in political communities with leftists, debating with them and cooperating in elections in which they are candidates and voters, or is that just a mug's game? At what point do the destroyers of society lose the legitimate expectation of participating in political processes on equal terms? An article like this makes one look back with fondness on the proscription lists of the Late Republic. And the expulsions of 1492. And St. Brice's Day (no offense, Henryk). It is likely that leftists only pretend to accept liberal political processes to lull the opposition, but will discard them whenever convenient--e.g., the sad fate of free speech in Sweden.

Fjordman addresses the great mystery of leftism: is the true motive of leftists to build the just society, or to destroy the society they know? The psychological child molestation undertaken by Swedish authorities and the license to rape given to immigrants--policies which not even the most deluded can believe will lead to the socialist utopia--strongly suggest that destruction is the true motive, not creation. (Orwell's boot stamping on the human face, forever.) In any case, to pursue policies in which the destructive results are a certainty and the "creative" ones highly speculative if not blatantly impossible strongly evinces a destructive motive.

Westerners need to have the conversation about how far they are willing to let things slide. If a party or faction would exceed that boundary if it came to power, then society is imprudent to permit that party or faction to participate in political processes rather than suppressing it. If a minority is unwilling to live under socialism, it probably has no business tolerating the participation of socialists in the political system.

In any case, those who are willing to import foreigners into the political community to outvote their compatriots, thus redefining the community in their own interest instead of preserving it for the common interest, would seem to have lost their right to participate in the political community.

Is it worthwhile to continue to participate in political communities with leftists.....

No, it's not. They are stupid like kappert, the typical fascist fool that we've all seen in history with the stupidity of Hitler's youth or Lenin's Komosol, whatever, the stupid spew programed nonsense. kappert is an idiot. I wouldn't degrade my mind in answering the fool's blather. Examine the end of WWII, he is either a collaborator or a pathetic moron that would have received a bullet or pariah status. He's disgusting. Someone has to say it.

kappert has been here a long time because someone always "debates" him. Debate him all that you want, but, don't be surprised if in a few months he's "fool A" and you are "fool B" for your efforts. You really don't seem to understand the anti-socials and dangerously stupid of this world.

Again, I was not talking about bandying words with Monsieur Kappert on this site, but about whether we should bother with deliberative political processes in which leftists participate, or just declare civil war and start the work of purging the West of this leftist plague.

We'll see if the rabid self-loathing lefties can make a deal with Islam. Mona will probably love her burqa as the typical nihilist self-loathing lefty freak that has gutted all that was good in their culture. She'll feel saved.

My heart goes out to the Swede that is repulsed by all of this and left without an alternative to his fate. US immigration has cut these people off, sadly. They do deserve a safe haven here. We need more voices in America alerting us to the danger.

The most popular parlour game is the hunt for scapegoats. The spontaneous tendency of the non-reflective consciousness to iron out troubles by shifting the blame on individuals complies with the liberal ideology: Liberalism, en principe, has individualised the causes of social problems. The causality of negative experience has to be located in the individuals as they are situated in their actual frame of existence. Never ever the system as such can be faulty, rather some individual has done wrong or even committed a crime. This kind of reflection is deeply irrational but a relief for consciousness because one has not to take pains in ascertaining and being critical of the conditions of one’s own very existence. In the Old Testament this mechanism is depicted as the making of a "scapegoat" onto whom the society symbolically shifts its sins and drives it to the desert afterwards. Even if Liberalism as the modern core-ideology is comparatively pragmatic in its search for culprits and does not hesitate to replace one "wicked" trait by another according to the circumstances, one has to face that its progeny is in fact committed to one-dimensional concepts of an universal enemy. The most vicious and momentous idée fixe hatched out in the society’s lap is anti-Semitism that culminated in the mass-murder of Jews in Nazi-Germany. Meanwhile, the merry-go-round for executives and leading politicians is turning faster and faster: Crisis, breakdowns and bankruptcies beat the time for "individually responsible individuals" to resign just to get replaced by others who can’t do better. The Western societies, not longer able to reflect themselves critically, deliver anonymous mythical apparitions symbolising the elusive Evil of their very own structure. Over the last few years while the crisis was culminating another projection is gaining ground alongside with the terrorist and the speculator: the child-abuser is the most recent incarnation of the Evil. Most of sexual abuse cases have always taken place in the "cosy" atmosphere of sweet home. One should not forget that the Belgian child murderer Dutroux brought his victims to the most prominent circles to satisfy their lust. Capitalist society is hostile to children anyway. At the same time this form of society is hostile to lust to the core. The slogan of "sexual liberation" used by the student movements of the 60ties, whose protagonists were not able to overcome the prevailing social forms, has only led to a sexualisation of the media and advertising, while the actual sex life of the commodity-consuming individual is more miserable than ever before. The legitimate motive to denounce and fight masculine violence against women and children, a problem exacerbating in a crisis-ridden world, turns into its opposite and transforms into a tool to demonise the phenomenon instead of criticising it, hereby barring the way to get to the root of the matter. The projective mania even stamps children as child abusers: In the USA an 18 years old youngster who ran away with his 14 years old girl friend was brought before the committing magistrate handcuffed. The same happened to an 11 years old boy being watched by a strait-laced neighbour when playing harmless doctor games with his 5 years old half sister. The mythical apparitions of the Evil are necessary to discharge the negative energy of the social crisis in an irrational and anti-emancipatory way. Such "events" only illustrate how far we already got with social paranoia. A society that is not interested any longer in getting on to its own secret is doomed to stage witch-hunting.

Thomas Landen: What are you opposed of? Gender equality? Strengthened United Nations? "The difference between boys and girls, in terms of their biology and brain, is greater than we could ever have imagined." Yet good, just imagine only masculined humans ruling the earth! But if we elect non-brainers like Sarah Palin, we should nominate Murdock for Propaganda Minister! Whether the swedish/scandinavian/nordic/protestant ambience is more healthy/smart or different to others should be clearly a 'non-scientific bla-bla'. So much for the swedish model. I hope onecent still gasps oxygen!

Who we are

The Brussels Journal is written by Europeans, living in as well as outside Europe. The Brussels Journal is published by the Society for the Advancement of Freedom in Europe (SAFE), a Swiss non-profit organisation.